part 1 1906 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded quoted-printable)
Why don't you just use an old computer and a few tuners to it
and get better quality and very little wear & tear.
sagetv.com is what I use with 4 analog tuners and two HD tuners.
But there are others were software that is free as well.
I had 4 replaytv because I did not want to pay monthly fees of tivo.
But sold them when I switched to sagetv.
FAR better than tape any day of the week.
Ray
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:05:35 -0700, Chops\ wrote:
{Quote hidden}>>> EP mode was VERY common, and pretty much universally
>>> compatible. It had
>>> a recording time of 3X SP, so a 120 tape would record 6 hours,
>>> a 160, 8
>>> hours. I've also heard of 10 hour tapes, but I felt that 160s
>>> were already pushing tape thinness a little far.
>>>
>
> We've got something like 4 VHS VCRs in our home, all recording
> "stuff" in 3x mode (what you call EP and some of the recorders call
> SLP. Six hours per tape.) Tapes move "ok" between machines (some
> loss of quality; especially: "audio sounds odd.") We don't save
> anything; all those machines are for time-shifting. Presumably, if
> "quality" were an issue, we wouldn't need 4 VCRs; no tape
> technology is capable of improving the quality of much of American
> Television! (I won't speak for other countries.)
> A beta recorder with 2H recording capability would never have been
> a starter (the TIVO upgraded with a 300GB drive is nice, though!)
> (Of course, by the time I bought my first VCR, Beta was pretty much
> gone. It's all my wife's fault.)
>
> So Beta had higher "quality", but VHS had longer record time and
> lower prices. Seems like there's room for a lot of argument on
> which was "better engineered."
>
> BillW
part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)
mac.com> wrote: